Radcliffe grimly grinds through “The Woman in Black”

Daniel Radcliffe, you’re about to experience what Sean Connery did in the 1970s.

After six outings as suave British spy James Bond, it took a long time for Connery to become accepted as anything else other than Bond. He seemed to do better in ensemble casts and finally got his Academy Award for 1987’s “The Untouchables.” But it took a long time for the public and the movie companies to treat him as anyone else other than Bond. In short, he was “typecast.”

After eight “Harry Potter” films, you’re going to be typecast, young Mr. Radcliffe. It’s going to be hard for audiences to see past that character. It’s possible, but it’s going to be a hard road. You need to pick good scripts and good characters. And while it’s not a bad film, “The Woman in Black” isn’t exactly going to make us forget your most famous role.

Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps, a man still in mourning for his wife, who died four years earlier giving birth to their son (Misha Handley, Radcliffe’s godson). His work as a solicitor for an English law firm has been slipping, and he is called on the carpet by his boss about it. He is offered one last chance to redeem himself and his career; travel to a small village to see to the estate of Alice Drablow, who owned a manor known as the Eel Marsh House. He does so dutifully, making arrangement for his son and the nanny to meet him there later in the week for a vacation.

On the train journey, he meets Sam Daily (Ciarán Hinds), a wealthy landowner in the village. Daily is the only person in the village who is friendly to him; the local innkeepers and the village solicitor (Tim McMullan) are anxious to have him take the train back to London as soon as possible. Kipps is determined to do the job, and makes the journey out to the manor, which is overgrown and dusty.

He begins going through the papers in the house and finds letters from Drablow’s sister Jennet Humfrye (Liz White), who expressed a great deal of anger that Drablow and her husband had her declared an unfit mother to her son, Nathaniel. Further study indicates that Nathaniel had died in an accident on the marsh surrounding the house and that Jennett blamed Drablow for the death. Jennett then hanged herself.

Kipps goes to a window and sees a figure dressed in black, appearing in the manor’s graveyard. Kipps goes to the village police station to report the sighting, but the local constable is quite uncomfortable with his presence and skulks out of the room. Two boys appear, bringing their young sister with them. She has just drunk lye, and collapses in Kipps’ arms, dying there.

Daily picks him up for dinner; his wife Elizabeth (Janet McTeer) seems to be pleasant enough, but when the discussion turns to Kipps’ son, she appears to go into a possessed state and scrawls out a hanging woman on the dining room table. Kipps realizes that the woman pictured is Jennet.

Kipps returns to the manor to continue his investigation when strange paranormal things begin to happen. He and Daily return to the village, only to find that the solictor’s home is on fire. Kipps rushes into the house to try to save their daughter, but he sees the Woman in Black standing there, manipulating the girl into setting herself afire. Later, in a conversation with a possessed Elizabeth, he learns that the Woman in Black is still taking her revenge for her lost son, convincing children in the village to commit suicide. And her next victim will be Kipps’ son.

Extras:

Commentary with director James Watkins and screenwriter Jane Goldman

Inside the Perfect Thriller: Making the Woman in Black: featurette on the making of the film, including interviews with Radcliffe, Hinds, White, McTeer and Watkins.

No Fear: Daniel Radcliffe as Arthur Kipps: extended interview with Radcliffe and Watkins about why he took the role and what he brought to it.

Ultraviolet digital copy of the film

So, if the question is “was this a good move for Radcliffe’s post ‘Harry Potter’ hopes,” I would say, “maybe.”

I appreciate that the goal here was to make a horror movie that didn’t devolve into a slasher film. It was good to see that Radcliffe wants to stretch his wings, although I didn’t think that the paranormal activity hinted at here was that much of a stretch from “Potter;” the difference is that one world accepts ghosts and magic as reality and one regards them as the devil’s work.

I suppose that what I found discouraging about the film was that it seemed so pedestrian. Radcliffe is game for the role, but it just doesn’t seem to give him much to do, other than maintain a grim demeanor. There’s no electrifying speech, like the one he gave in the Great Hall to denounce Snape’s (Alan Rickman) role in Albus Dumbledore’s (Michael Gambon) death in “Harry Potter and the Deatlhy Hallows, Part 2.”

But it must also be said that after 10 years of his young life doing “Potter” that Radcliffe has earned the right to do a subdued project. If that was his goal, then fine. But given all of the praise that his directors (including Watkins in the extras for this film) have heaped on him for his ability to act and take directions, we would like to see more dramatics out of young Mr. Radcliffe.

As for his project choices, I hope that Radcliffe will follow the example of Bruce Willis, an actor who is typically typecast as an action heavy. For every “Die Hard” clone or sequel that Willis makes, he does an understated project. Out of those projects has come some very good work, such as his roles in “Pulp Fiction” and “The Sixth Sense.” We’ll take these small projects in stride, as long as we get a big one every once in a while.